The New Jersey Economic Development Authority has requested additional information from six companies — most of them connected to Democratic powerbroker George E. Norcross III — in connection with hundreds of thousands in tax breaks they received from the state.

The move came as the governor’s special task force investigating the EDA last week ramped up the pressure on some of those companies, issuing subpoenas for documents and records related to those incentive payments.

EDA officials said they were re-examining the awards the companies received under the Grow NJ tax incentive program, which has been under a dark cloud over allegations that lucrative awards meant to spur economic development was influenced by special interests.

“We have no higher obligation than to serve as stewards of taxpayer dollars, and the process we are initiating today will enable our team to make a determination of appropriate next steps with regard to these specific companies,” said Tim Sullivan, who heads the EDA. “Transparency and accountability should be the hallmark of any public investment program, and we take any allegations of wrongdoing very seriously.”

The letters sent Wednesday went to Conner Strong & Buckelew, the insurance company run by Norcross, and to Cooper Health System, where he serves as chairman. Also receiving letters were Holtec International; NFl; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and The Michaels Organization.

Cooper University Health Care, which acknowledged receiving the letter from the EDA, said it looked forward to responding to the EDA’s request and “accepting its invitation to meet and discuss the matter.”

“We also look forward to explaining why the task force’s spurious claims against Cooper are unsupported both legally and factually. We are very confident that the EDA will agree that Cooper’s tax credit awards were proper and fully justified under the law,” said the hospital in a statement.

Daniel Fee, a spokesman for Norcross, charged that the administration was playing politics over the EDA.

He called the EDA notice “another transparent attempt by Phil Murphy’s administration to distract the public from the Legislature’s repeated rejection of his push for higher taxes, his allies’ refusal to stand up for Katie Brennan after she claimed she was assaulted, his backing down over the requirement to reveal his dark money donors, and the mushrooming scandal at the SDA (Schools Development Authority).”

Meanwhile, attorneys for Norcross have asked a judge to reconsider her denial to shut down an investigation by a special governor’s task force that has been looking into the tax incentives— calling the ongoing probe “politically motivated.”

In court filings, they charged that the task force appointed by Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy to examine the state’s Economic Development Authority had turned its sights almost exclusively on Norcross and those associated with the Camden County Democrat.

“The task force is not, as the court indicated, an investigative body examining the management and affairs of the EDA. Rather, it is an adjudicatory body focused almost exclusively on destroying the plaintiffs,” they argued.

The filing came after the task force last week issued its subpoenas seeking information regarding their applications to the EDA. The filing of those subpoenas was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Separately, the task force announced it will hold another public hearing in Trenton on July 9 to take testimony from the public on the economic incentive program, which critics say has cost the state billions, and has benefitted many with political connections.

The tax credit program has been in the spotlight since a report by the state comptroller in January found widespread problems and a lack of oversight involving some $11 billion in tax breaks. That report concluded the EDA may have “improperly awarded, miscalculated, overstate and overpaid” credits to a number of companies involving billions in state funding. Following that audit, the governor appointed a task force to investigate the tax credits and the EDA.

Last week, the task force came out with its own findings on the programs, after a judge denied a request by Norcross to issue a temporary restraining order blocking the issuance of the report and to put an end to the state investigation.

“Frankly the public interest is to allow the task force to report,” said Superior Court Judge Mary C. Jacobson in Mercer County. “The public has a right to know.”

The task force report was distributed just minutes later. It claimed that the legislation governing the state’s tax incentives was largely shaped by special interests, including a lawyer close to Norcross. And it found the EDA did not have adequate procedures in place to vet applications that should have been rejected.

Cooper University Hospital in Camden.SJN

Among the exhibits in the report was an email from an development official at Cooper University Hospital —where Norcross serves as chairman — that the task force cited as an example of how the system was being rigged. The hospital executive sought information on the cost of office space in Pennsylvania as part of a submission for an tax incentive meant to keep companies from moving out of state, while noting there was “no probability” of the hospital actually moving office workers to Philadelphia.

Cooper officials have said they were only seeking comparable cost data at the request of the EDA, and had done nothing wrong.

In their filing for reconsideration, attorneys for Norcross and other companies cited in the report called the task force “a politically motivated and biased exercise to confirm the predetermined conclusion that the plaintiffs are bad actors who hijacked the legislative process and lied on their EDA applications to enrich themselves at the public’s expense.”

They asked Jacobson to reconsider her decision, holding up the report as newly available evidence of the irreparable harm on their reputations, asking that they not be forced to comply with those subpoenas unless they are afforded the right to cross-examine the task force’s witnesses and to present witnesses and evidence of their own.

“The report recklessly accuses plaintiffs of serious misconduct based on a one-sided, ends-driven analysis of a limited set of documents,” they wrote.